I give up, after many, many years!

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? I don't think so.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over
the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not)
explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so
incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on
the matter.

Pilots are not unique in this respect. Many people are this way. It is a
common personality characteristic, but not a universal one.

I don't understand this characteristic fully, as I do not share it. If I tell
someone something I know, I rather expect him to look it up, as I would. It's
surprising if he takes it as gospel. I am not offended if he choses to verify
what I say.

Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to
expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your
message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're
saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete
Instrument Pilot".

Bob Gardner is occasionally on this group himself (or at least someone
claiming to be him is). I wonder if he would feel compelled to argue with me
as well.

The stuff I have from Bob Gardner is so well-worn that the pages are starting
to fall out, and I still have more on my wish list at Amazon.

Anyway, I'm not worried about burnt bridges. All newsgroups have a steady
turnover, so there are always new people to talk to. People with the attitude
you describe are generally incompetent, so if they choose not to enter into
discussion, so much the better. And there are always a few people who don't
suffer from these problems and _do_ know what they are talking about, and will
discuss aviation objectively no matter what the brat pack does.

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
your own?

I've been using this pseudonym for years and I don't see any reason to change.
I keep it to be slightly more anonymous, although anyone who expends even a
modicum of effort can find out who I actually am. I originally adopted it to
protect my erstwhile employer.

I find that, over time, a gradual filtering process occurs: the stupid people
stop talking to me entirely (which is fine) as they exhaust themselves with
their own tantrums, the average people get over their emotional reactions and
become more civil and eventually engage in useful interaction, and the smart
people never suffer from these issues to begin with. Sometimes people who
behaved foolishly at first become embarrassed by their initial behavior and
tell me "well, you've changed," when in fact _they_ have changed in their
interactions with me (I haven't changed in decades).

Steve Foley writes:

This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.

No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use incorrect
assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot knows (or should
know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else being equal. (I know
what someone will say about this, too, but I won't deprive him of the
satisfaction of playing the game.)

On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? * I don't think so.
--
I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. The problem with
getting all of your information from books and the internet as
distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
dont know what you dont know. You and I could read 100 books on
neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
to perform a labotomy. But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. I wish I could
help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
their wing and give him a taste of real life.
Terry

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:34:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of
instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while
several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case
where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is
correct.

No, it's a case of applicability and context. You train to ignore
your inner ear, but there are plenty of other sensations and cues
which you do pay attention to whether VMC or IMC. Blanket statements
and inability to accept correction or understand the context of the
book is his issue, and regardless of what name he comes back as (which
he won't do because he's too stubourn to know when to leave) the same
issue will always be there. He needs to go back to the sim groups and
stay where his simulator only posting is on topic.

On May 18, 7:26*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is
telling them. *

Ahh, one minor detail as you are partially correct above, or I had a
great instructor as I sure didn't learn this on my own.

Ignore what your head sez (leans), but not what your seat of your
pants (positive or negative G's) And this is normal full panel
instrument flying.

In IMC, the airplane is just an extension of your body and you get
very intimate to what it's trying to tell you.

To better equate it to you as a VFR pilot, it is no different then the
last 6 inches of flight on landing :-) If you ignore the negative G's
in your rear end on landing 6 inches above the runway, you will come
down with a thump. If you feel too much positive G's in the seat of
your pants on landing, you will float. When you hit that sweet spot
between the two, you won't even know the wheels touch terra firma.
Instrument flying is no different whether you be in level flight or on
an actual approach.

The fact that you were able to use your body's sensations to
escape from a very serious instrument failure is a tribute to your piloting
skills. *You may also wish to purchase a lottery ticket, because not all
vacuum failures end so well.

I may need that lottery ticket, not for surviving the problem, but the
cost of a new regulator! Pump is fine, but the regulator does not
appear to be regulating! 1.2 AMU is a preliminary estimate.

While I would love to say it's my piloting skills, it really starts
with the quality training I received from the get go. I just took my
training to heart.

On May 18, 7:34*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
*I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

PLEASE, PLEASE go out with an IA pilot and touch a cloud! It's the
folks that don't actively touch a cloud that gets in the most trouble,
not the ones that do it daily. You have the means to do this, so
really there is no excuse for you..

I put this in my original post and will reiterate it, ias it is sooooo
important! I have taken VFR pilots and IA students up and even been
safety pilot with newly minted pilots who never touched a cloud DURING
an approach.

The hood, blinders what ever you wish to call it doesn't compare to
the real deal. MSFS doesn't compare to the real deal.

A couple of the pilots had NO clue what it was inside IMC, and came
out of it whiter then the cloud. Not because of turbulence mind you,
but the fact they did not know which way was up or down. For the
instrument pilot where I was safety, he was behind his airplane,
enough to on the edge of dangerous. Not from his flying skills, but
not knowing in detail what the procedures are in the ATC system AND
making it work for him. He was getting a little overwhelmed just
getting to his first fix!

What is failing to be recognized in this entire thread is the workload
is upped exponentially on instrument approaches. It's not a matter of
picking up an approach plate, launching into the white wild yonder and
flying a set of needles. It's not just a matter of flying needles.
It's a mental process that will wear you down if you are not on top of
your game and part of that game is feeling intimately (not verbal /
non instrmententation) what your plane is telling you.

It takes a combination of trusting the instruments, but also your
senses. If you blindly trust your instruments without consideration
they may fail, you will be a statistic.

If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share
your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of
your pants feeling.

Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.

Mx BLANKET statement is dangerous at best, flat out wrong would be
more like it.

On May 18, 1:03*am, WingFlaps wrote:

As *a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
pilot...

Very good excercise IMHO.

Friend of mine posted in these forums that the pitot tube ingested a
bug. While he may have had better odds hitting the lottery, things
happen IN FLIGHT.

On May 19, 12:56*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.
Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the aircraft, and
with the proper equipment.

For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound system
with sub-woofer. *When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it sings. *When
you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. *When you kill the
engine, you can hear the prop windmilling.

And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is wonderfully
done.

An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH harder to
fly the sim with the sound turned off. *You don't realize how often you use
aural cues in flight until they're not there. *(Which, BTW, makes me really
admire the deaf pilots of the world. *Back before the troll wars reduced
this group, there used to be a regular poster here named Henry Kisor who
belonged to the deaf pilot's association, and I was always impressed that he
was able to fly so well without aural cues. *But I digress...)

Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker, you're
absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. *But the sim software *is*
creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require a good quality
system to hear it.
--


Nope, I detect there is no change in prop sound when you load it up
and my computer does have a sound card. Maybe you are using one of
Mx's famous add ons, but can you hear the prop disk meet off axis
air?.

Cheers

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Everyone pilot knows (or should know) that if you increase power, you
climb, all else being equal.

You should have quit while you were ahead, or at least not so far behind.